Obama, Pakistan & the Media

by Ali Golomb

The media are a public service, and they are supposed to report unbiased information through raising tough questions. The New York Times' Stephen Dubner reported that 67.8% of all daily newspapers, 98.4% of college newspapers, and 100% of alternative weekly newspapers endorsed Barack Obama for the presidency. Because the majority of the media supported Obama, they failed to ask follow up and vital questions that were left unanswered during his candidacy. Even though I myself am a Democrat and an Obama supporter, I see how the media presented Obama as a knight in shinning armor who will save the American people.

One of the ways the media failed was that they did not ask President-elect Obama to go more in depth with his foreign policy plans. Obama argued the war in Iraq has distorted U.S. foreign policy. Obama said he would withdraw troops from Iraq, and focus instead on Pakistan. However, the media failed to question Obama further. Obama said that if Pakistan does not comply, he will consider taking action. The media played down the fact that Pakistan's government does not support terrorism, and Obama is giving another sovereign nation an ultimatum — adhere to our policies or else we will take action against your nation. President George W. Bush has this same attitude with Iraq.

Even though I too would like to be assured that our nation is going to be safe, the American people do not need the media to continue to glorify politicians. Rather, the American people need the media to raise difficult questions, and demand difficult answers because we cannot trust the government totally; we need the media to serve as a watchdog. We saw what happened when we did not raise difficult questions out of fear: American involvement in an unpopular war in Iraq that the majority of the public opposes.

(Political graphic from StrangePolitics, a website that offers copyright-free political material.)

politics
2008 campaign
2008 election
Barack Obama
Pakistan
Iraq War
newspaper endorsements
George Bush
media
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites


Subscribe in a reader

Proposition 8: Where's the Outrage?

by Chelsea Ritchie

Last week, while voters were casting their votes in mass numbers for Barack Obama in the presidential race, a different vote was counted and pronounced. California’s controversial Proposition 8 passed, making gay marriage illegal in the state. (For more on Proposition 8 and gay rights, please see: "California's Proposition 8's TV Ads" and "The Story, the Truth and Fred Phelps.") Basically the proposition bans the right of same-sex couples to marry, nulls the bonds of those already married, and overrules Proposition 22. The vote was 52.5% in favor and 47.5% against, although those percentages don't include absentee and provisional ballots.

Why have the media covered so little of this topic? While my classmates argue over the future under president-elect Obama and whether his policies are adequate, I can’t help but to wonder why the media have said so little about Proposition 8. After all, this is the highest- funded campaign on any state ballot (a combined total of $73.4 million). Clearly the media frenzy for Obama’s campaign has been shown all over CNN, ABC, NBC, and other major television news networks.

Perhaps being a Californian, I feel compelled to research but I found that while I was in California I didn't see much information about what Prop. 8 proposed. ProtectMarriage.com, a major organization which sponsored the Prop. 8 ballot, cleverly made the campaign into voting for Prop. 8 to “protect ourselves and children.” Contrasting that position, the ads against Prop. 8 hardly used “gay,” or “lesbian” and I think the ads actually looked so similar that one could easily confuse what Prop. 8 did. Since May 15, Proposition 22 has allowed same sex marriages and I have never felt the need to “protect myself.” I did the research and saw what exactly Prop. 8 petitioned, but my fellow Californians may not have. My good friend Remie even told me she was proud to vote for Prop. 8 because she wanted to protect gay marriages. What she really did was vote to ban it. It’s this kind of confusion that probably changed the voter outcome for or against Prop. 8.

There needs to be more awareness about this proposition and I blame the limited coverage of the media to the passing of this petition. It is the responsibility of our news anchors, newspaper columnists, radio DJ’s and bloggers to spread the awareness. Yes, it is also the voter’s responsibility to research before you vote, but many people rely on the mainstream media to deliver the facts. Just because the media were occupied with the presidential election is not an excuse to barely show a proposition this big.

(The photo shows a post-election protest by those against California's Proposition 8 in San Francisco. The photo is by ingridtaylar via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license. For more on this topic please see these posts on the iVoryTowerz blog: "Isn't Love All You Need?" and "California: Prop 8 Turns Back the Clock.")

politics
Proposition 8
Prop 8
California Proposition 8
gay marriage
gay rights
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

Post-Election Analysis: What About Those Negative Ads?

by Logan Ruppel

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Mysterious phone calls at 3 a.m. A little girl picking daisies who gets nuked. We are all only too familiar with the mudslinging negative campaign ads that gained popularity during the 1960's and have become ubiquitous on television during the past several presidential elections. Negative advertisements involve attacking a political opponent's policies, past voting record, or personal character to garner support instead of focusing on one's own policies and personal qualities. Sometimes the ads are used to impose opinions on the candidate's "good" policies compared with the opponent's "bad" policies, rather than allowing people to decide for themselves.

Negative ads that focus on policy tend to only promote the benefits of a candidate's platform, while ignoring any possible negative consequences. Not surprisingly, these ads present to the viewer only negative aspects of the opponent's policies and fail to mention any benefits. In order to make an effective, legitimate argument, ads need to accurately represent both sides of an issue, laying down credible facts and figures to prove one side while disproving the other. Unfortunately, it probably isn't possible to address all of these proposals in the small space of a 30 or 60 second advertisement. The only campaign-funded TV spot that came remotely close to achieving this during the 2008 campaign was President-elect Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial that presented his message in a clear, concise way.

Many attack ads venture into the realm of logical fallacy, in this case ad hominem. Political advertisements based on this fallacy, which literally means "argument against the man," ignore the real issues and policies at stake. These ads use personal criticisms of an opponent as evidence to disprove his own arguments. This type of reasoning is flawed because there is no connection between personality and stances on issues. One of Senator John McCain's advertisements in the 2008 presidential campaign compared Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears, saying "He's the biggest celebrity in the world, but is he ready to lead?" and "Higher taxes, more foreign oil." This ad characterized Obama as nothing more than a famous face with no substance just because he has become wildly popular in America and the world. Also, saying that Obama is for higher taxes was misleading, as he intends to lower taxes on everyone except the very wealthy and wants to lessen dependence on foreign oil, not increase it.

Most candidates who use negative campaigning are in a last ditch effort during the final weeks of an election to make up for falling behind in the polls and fundraising. Public reactions to excessive negative campaigning have been largely negative themselves. While the base of support for the attacker most likely will be rallied to support him or her, the more moderate or swing voters may be disgusted with the tone of the campaign. Negative ads force an emotional response in viewers, possibly prompting them to forgo intellectual opinions of candidates and reject them out of fear. By going too far or too personal with attack ads, candidates can actually provide a boost for their opponent's campaigns by turning people off to the aggressive and seemingly loathing candidate. Negative ads overall contribute to polarized politics by driving a wedge of animosity between already opposed voters and lessen voter turnout due to alienation of the centrist electorate.

(Photo by larilari of Goiania, Brazil via stock.xchng; photo discovered through everystockphoto.com. To see the classic "Daisy" ad from 1964, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
advertising
negative advertising
Barack Obama
John McCain
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Media & Today's Patriotism

by Sarah Filley

After what seemed like the never-ending story of a fight for the presidency; the United States will soon have a new administration. During election, my network of choice was CNN. After a quick and painless vote count, floured with mostly ignored commentary by the likes of Campbell Brown, Anderson Cooper, and, of course, Wolf Blitzer, I found myself saying to a friend, “Oh my lord, I love America!” and instantly I wondered, why have I never said this before election night. I attribute this in part to my upbringing in a nearly anti-right wing, raging liberal town where “Fuck the government,” and “Shit I better move to Canada,” are chants that were heard far too often throughout the past eight years. But I also think that for me personally, the media have altered my sense of patriotism.

Watching the news has instilled in me a resolute uncertainty about my country. There are too many conspiracies, too many plots, and overall too many analysts with frightening things to say about our leaders to always feel a sense of confidence or trust. News outlets exist to bring to light the little known secrets of the influential men and women of America. In February 2008, The New York Times falsely accused Sen. John McCain of having an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman. Skepticism arose through the media’s coverage of Barack Obama’s connection with William Ayers and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. The media took a comment made by now Vice President-elect Joe Biden and implied it had racially insensitive connotations, potentially stirring up trouble. Investigative journalism wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for the mistakes and discrepancies made throughout history.

The definition of patriotism has changed drastically with the emergence of the media. Since Thomas Paine incited revolutionary sentiment in 1776, the media have flourished by presenting the American people with the kind of information that makes it possible to lose faith. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not in favor of living in a cloud of ignorance. Having the power and right to question our authorities and be made aware of what’s going on at the national level is part of what makes living in America so great. But since the media began uncovering certain inconvenient truths about our government, there are fewer and fewer people who can, without doubt, say that they have full faith and trust in our nation and its leaders. So during this week, after history was made and a beautiful example of the democratic process was displayed to the world, I would like to take a chance to profess my love for this country. By next week there will be more scandals. Something new will arise in the media that might scare us or cause us to doubt. But in this pause for celebration, I will remember that I do have faith in my country. And despite the fervent scares that the media have maxed in on, I know it is possible to be informed as well as patriotic. I am proud, and always have been, to be an American.

(The photo of CNN Center in Atlanta, GA is by tanjila via Flickr, using a Creative Commons license.)

politics
2008 campaign
CNN
Barack Obama
John McCain
Joe Biden
Thomas Paine
media
Biden
McCain
Obama
Add to Technorati Favorites

The Blockbuster Musical

by Jordan Coughenour

Often looked upon with the polarizing lows of being either an enclave of elitist complications or a puffy, nonsensical frolic-fest, the musical has steadily grown more and more out of touch with contemporary media and society. Once a primary form of expression and popular sentiment, commenting on society with songs such as "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime" from Americana, Broadway also was a primary form of American social advancement, with African American actors such as Ethel Waters taking on startlingly nuanced leading roles before Hollywood even began to consider serious racial diversification. Even in the 1970's, when speaking openly about homosexuality was still taboo in many social circles, Broadway boldly showed its fearlessness in playing home to the dance musical A Chorus Line, which featured three openly gay characters.

Even a brief glance at the offerings on Broadway today however, and it's difficult to distinguish between the Great White Way and your local megaplex theatre. Offerings such as the ridiculously laughable Shrek the Musical, the soon to open Billy Elliot, and the recently closed Legally Blonde are all adapted from their successful movie counterparts. While such unoriginality might be excusable if the final product were in any way enjoyable to watch, both Shrek and Legally Blonde play out more like onstage puppet show versions of the cinematic predecessors than their own, stand-alone piece of creativity. Both are shiny, loud and admittedly, very nice to look at, but everything about them is superficial. The most distressing part of this entire situation is that audiences still pay a great deal of money to see them! Ever since the blockbuster sensation The Producers, and its creator, Mel Brooks, realized the marketable potential in name-brand musicals, ticket prices on both Broadway and the West End of London have skyrocketed to around $100 a pop. That is, until Mel Brooks came around for a second go with Young Frankenstein and had the gall to ask for $450 for a single ticket. Luckily, Young Frankenstein opened to horrendous reviews and failed to create the buzz necessary to entice, or rather, fool, people into shelling over nearly half a grand for a show.

These so-called "blockbuster musicals" are slowly but most assuredly causing the continuous downfall of Broadway as a legitimate artistic medium. As the Russian literary critic, Vissarion Belinksy, once stated, "If something true can be understood about art, something true will be understood about liberty too." American liberty must be in a sad state indeed if this is what is honored at the Tony Awards. Again, it all falls back on the shoulders of Mel Brooks. In charging such an astronomical amount to see a Broadway show, consumers began wanting to see their money onstage in ways that transcended pure talent, and so we are left with gaudy, flashy spectacle. The shows that are byproducts of popular movies also have roots in this monetary vein. Seeing a Broadway show is itself a gamble; you hand over your cash and hope that you will be moved and entertained. It only makes sense that familiar titles of established quality would be the most reasonable place to spend your money. The situation doesn't seem to have any end in sight, as an economic crisis makes people more wary of where they place their wallets than ever before, and the financial burden of producing a show with no viable headliner or previous following is too risky to even consider. Should a producing team have the nerve and pocketbook to invest in such a show, it's inevitably only a short matter of time before it shutters it's doors of originality and creativity forever, and the gargantuan monsters of corporate escapism and gall continue on. The most recent causality in this massacre was this summer's off-Broadway transfer, [title of show], which slammed spectacle up the kisser by using a set of nothing more than a few metal chairs, a table and a piano. The musical quickly built up a cult-like following of Broadway die-hards, with its inspirational, though financially unviable slogan and 11 o' clock number, which proclaimed, "I'd rather be nine people's favorite thing, than a hundred people's ninth favorite thing." The show closed last month after only 102 performances. Shrek the Musical continues on, and future adaptations of Hollywood movies such as Midnight Cowboy and Catch Me if You Can are already in the works.

(Editor's Note: This piece is also cross-posted on the iVoryTowerz blog.)

(Promotional photo of Shrek the Musical from DreamWorks Theatricals, a division of Viacom, by Joan Marcus.)

theater
films
Mel Brooks
The Producers
Young Frankenstein
Billy Elliot
Legally Blonde
title of show
corporate media
films
culture
Add to Technorati Favorites

America's Youth: Rocking the Vote

by Liz Marjollet

Although it is usually thought that the youth vote is severely underrepresented in elections, I would beg to differ in this election. Youths are definitely becoming more involved in the democratic process. For example, as a college student, I spend my days on Facebook and my nights watching shows such as Saturday Night Live, The Daily Show, and The Colbert Report, along with studying. Facebook has been advertising the election like crazy, with the ability to give your friends free pins endorsing either the Democratic or Republican candidates. Also, many people have been "donating their statuses" to one of the two candidates.

Much of the youth are also more excited about their ability to vote, especially with this election. The historical ramifications alone are reason to want to get involved. Either America's first black president will be elected into office, or Sen. John McCain may have the possibility of a big upset; not to mention McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin, who would be the first woman in the number two position. As well, there has been more fuss over exercising one's right to vote. It gives power to the people, who take their responsibilities seriously.

The media have also used the election as an advertising point to great extremes. For example, Starbucks, McDonald's and Ben and Jerry's have all promised free product with a patron's sticker testifying that they voted. As well, the election has been the lead news story for weeks, if not months. Last night, SNL ran a special two hour program because of the elections. The Daily Show and The Colbert Report both have been poking fun at the candidates and the election in general for weeks. Even now, on my Yahoo! page, there is a poll asking if I voted, and there's an ad for Dodge Rams, with a blue truck and a red truck attached by a chain and facing each other with an American flag backdrop, stating, "Pick your ram. Click to Vote." Google's homepage is creative as usual, with all the letters covered by curtains, as if they were voting, and the second "g" has a "vote" pin on it.

Along with the internet, radio and television have also been a huge part of the hype. Radio stations spend their time reserved for talking discussing the elections. Television is also flooded with the ads put out by both campaigns. Because the election is now able to be everywhere, young people cannot feign ignorance about the issues both campaigns discuss, because no matter the medium, the issues are discussed, whether in serious or satirical terms. The current state of foreign and domestic policy, along with the economic crisis, only add to the list of reasons that youth voters need to get to the polls. But I have a feeling much of the youth already did.

(Graphic by Shep Fairey for ObeyGiant. To see a joint announcement about voting from Jon Stewart of The Daily Show and Stephen Colbert of The Colbert Report, please check below.)




politics
2008 campaign
rock the vote
Saturday Night Live
Daily Show
Colbert Report
Sarah Palin
John McCain
facebook
google
Palin
McCain
media
Add to Technorati Favorites

So Where's the Truth in the Election?

by Irena Schneider

Looking backward now even before the polls close: the election is over. Somebody won and somebody lost. And the world goes on, promises to save the universe gone, tears from fervent supporters gone, silly half-truths in the demagogic limelight… well, perhaps those will never be gone. November 4, 2008 is the apex of a legacy left by a populace that has exhausted its frustration with the past eight years, filled with convictions incredibly sturdy, melodramatic, imbued with a prophetic tone beaming in quivering surety all lodged somewhere at the back of our throats. In twenty years, we will perhaps remember the magnetism under the dome of the Democratic National Convention, when Barack Obama stared ahead and waved, engulfed by a stage of crying supporters while the theme from Remember the Titans blasted across our TV screens and made us want to begin sobbing with hope. We will remember fellow diva Sarah Palin and her insistence to discuss energy policy when asked about taxation policy. Surely, we will remember our friend Joe the Plumber, a hero for a good couple of hours until someone leaked that the poor man doesn't even have a plumber's license. And while our favorite journalists in the CNN newsroom bemoaned the end of such a great metaphor to feed to unconcerned so-called "average" citizens (big compliment to the middle class, of course), at least we had the privilege to kick back and laugh at the process with Saturday Night Live.

It's been a good time. We will remember the agonizing attempts to figure out who's more "presidential," the panic from sexist and racist jibs and jabs, the lies, the ads, the comfortable commotion of establishment politics painstakingly picked apart, tossed around, and put back together by American punditry. Perhaps we will also remember the darker shades of this critical moment. There's the fear and uncertainty about what America has become. We may recall the bailout, for instance, but will we recall the rescue?

Unlikely. Just as unlikely that we'd remember July 12th and Ron Paul's march for freedom, where more than five thousand individuals clambered onto the front lawn of the Capitol and wondered how to become a "mainstream" voice. Neither will we remember the debates between Chuck Baldwin and Ralph Nader or the footage of Bob Barr responding to Obama and McCain during debate time. We will not remember the cancer in our monetary system. On the bright side, at least we might bask in our once-gloried intentions to apply a band aid (and bring back the wisdom of certain reporters at CNBC trying to figure out how to bypass the Constitution when the bailout was initially rejected). There was the housing boom, we might ponder. But what caused the housing boom? To suggest that federal reserve or government policies have been the motivation for our crumbling infrastructure would not only be considered preposterous, but it would be much too difficult to relay. Such is the reality of corporate media: the importance of today's political world is the soundbite and the bottom line. The point is not to encourage critical thinking and provide the populace with information necessary to effectively question the government (as the founding fathers intended our democracy to function). The point is to herd the populace into the realm of irrational responses and gut-provoked indignation and finger pointing spurting from headlines and pithy political drama. There is almost nothing behind the lines. And why would there be? People are much too busy with daily life to ask the deeper questions about root causes or discover the few brave souls struggling on the fringes of the bureaucratic-media-interest-Congress issue network. Within such recycled surface sentiment, journalists are simultaneously much too busy thinking of how they'll next grab the attention of that very busy public.

So where's the truth?

Perhaps we might find it after our love affair with our candidates has subsided. After all, there is a limit to how much we can bandage a patient before we realize he's actually dying of something much deeper inside. But in the meantime, we're not intended to seek the truth. So in the final moments of this historical election, let us lay back and recall the jib jabs and the lies. Let us sob and point fingers. Let us be average joes. Relax, it's only about November 4th, 2008. Nothing new to say. We need not wonder.

(The political cartoon is by Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly from the 19th Century. This cartoon is now in the public domain. To see John McCain's appearance on NBC's Saturday Night Live with Tina Fey, please check below.)



politics
2008 campaign
Sarah Palin
Barack Obama
John McCain
Republicans
Democrats
Ron Paul
Chuck Baldwin
Ralph Nader
Joe the Plumber
Saturday Night Live
Palin
McCain
Obama
corporate media
media
Add to Technorati Favorites